Banner ad

Wednesday, September 05, 2012

James Pethokoukis has a good question for the Democrats: "Which Bush policies cause[ed] the Great Recession? And which of Obama's ended it?

Debbie Wasserman Schultz first lied that Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren had said that "what the Republicans are doing is dangerous for Israel." After the Ambassador issued a statement denying that he'd ever said that, she denied that she had said it and accused the Examiner of making it up. Well, now that has been revealed as a lie upon lie since Philip Klein has the audio of what she said. So now she's a liar squared.

Since the Democrats ignored this last night, here is a reminder.

Party platforms seem to exist simply for the opposition to tear down, but sometimes what parties choose to put in and take out is very revealing. This year the Democrats have revealed their feelings about Israel in the changes that they have made between this year and 2008. The Yid with Lid examines what these changes mean.

Yuval Levin explains how Medicare hides its costs by running its administrative costs through other federal agencies. So don't believe the argument that Medicare has less bureaucracy tha private insurers.

It was remarkable to hear one speaker after another inveigh against "the failed policies of the past" (as if Obama's policies have been the antidote), before ceding the convention floor to a message from...Jimmy Carter. It was equally remarkable to watch a convention overtly geared toward hyping "women's issues" loudly cheer a tribute to...Ted Kennedy. It was also interesting to hear from three Democrat Governors (O'Malley, Quinn, and Patrick) who have unapologetically raised taxes and whose states are fiscal basketcases -- and another (Perdue) whose approval rating is so far under-water in North Carolina that she chose not to run for another term.

Even a non-partisan would have to note how thin the Democratic bench is compared to the Republican bench as revealed by each convention's line-up of speakers.

And, as Byron York continues, Michelle Obama last night talked about how “for Barack, success isn’t about how much money you make, it’s about the difference you make in people’s lives.” But not mentioned is this cute little detail from her work history.

In 2004, just before her husband was elected to the Senate, she made $121,910 from her position as an executive at the University of Chicago Hospital. In 2005, almost immediately after Barack Obama took office, her pay jumped to $316,962 — a very nice raise, even during the Bush years, when the economy was doing far better than today. Helping others was actually a pretty good living for Mrs. Obama.

As Holman Jenkins writes, what if Obama had focused on economic growth instead of expanding the size of government? That is why there is a tremendous opportunity for a President Romney since there are so many companies sitting on a pot of money because they're hesitant to invest in growing their businesses in the face of the Democrats' desires to increase government regulations and practice of shelling out federal money to favored businesses.